Lincoln Research

[David Lockmiller]

(04-24-2018 11:30 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  I've always wanted to know more about Lincoln 'the politician'. How did he manage to win nomination ... how did he select his cabinet and generals ... who were his enemies ... who were his friends ... did he know which was which ... did he hold grudges (or make use of talented people, regardless of past experiences ... I think that was one of his strengths, BTW) what was the Washington culture like (media-wise) ... Did he make any unjustified assumptions (and why) ? What mistakes did he make , why, and how did he deal with them. We know he had to make compromises (such as, I think, Cameron) ... was he aware of the risks?

Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote a book on most of these questions: "Team of Rivals."

He did not hold grudges as a general rule. An illustrative case in point is Secretary of War Stanton and Lincoln's previous association and legal experience with Stanton in Cincinnati before the war. Lincoln tended to make his statute of limitations short in most, if not all, cases.

I suspect that there were a number of instances when Lincoln had to accept what he could not change. For example, when President Lincoln was desperate for votes to get the Thirteenth Amendment legislation passed in the House of Representatives, he was told he could get two New Jersey Democrats votes if only he could get Senator Sumner "to postpone a bill he had introduced to end the monopoly the Camden & Amboy Railroad enjoyed." Lincoln was asked to intervene. Lincoln responded that he could "do nothing with Sumner in these matters," and feared if he tried, Sumner "would be all the more resolute." ("Team of Rivals," pages 687 - 688.)

The best generals at the outset of the war "went South," with the notable exceptions of General William Tecumseh Sherman (who, incidentally, fought under Grant at the battles of Forts Henry and Donelson, which I did not previously know) and the able General George Henry Thomas, the "Rock of Chickamauga."

Sherman did not oppose slavery and was sympathetic to Southerners' defense of the institution. He opposed, however, any attempt at dissolving the Union. He resigned his position as the first superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military Academy (later, it became Louisiana State University). On hearing of South Carolina's secession from the United States, Sherman prophetically observed to a close friend, Professor David F. Boyd of Virginia, an enthusiastic secessionist:

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

(Sherman source material is from Wikipedia.)